Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

I believe one of the unique aspects of Christianity in comparison to all other religions is that works do not result in Salvation.

Then who specifically and exclusively was Jesus addressing, in Matthew 25:31-46? And how do you know this does not apply to you?

Or, for that matter, Luke 14:33? Maybe God deems you as rich?

Now, what's interesting about that is that for people who think that works are required for Salvation, I'm fine with that. Because whether John believes works are required, or John doesn't believe works are required, the way John actually lives, shouldn't change if he's a follower of Christ.

Disagree, until further notice. Please see above.

I think when you look across at the three branches of Christianity, you find the core to be unified. The core being that Christ is God, Christ was born of virgin. Christ lived a sinless life. Christ died on the cross. Christ rose from the dead. Christ ascended into heaven. Christ will at some point in the future, in some way, return to earth. There is unity in that among all three branches of Christianity. And that's what matters.

None of this pertains to the topic of humans reaching claimed required tenets for salvation. Thus, the above does not matter, in this particular case.

I again ask, (3rd attempt):

What institution provides the best Biblical education? And furthermore, what are they teaching, in regards to the tenets to salvation? Is it the Catholics, other, other, other?

John may believe that he has to have works accompany his relationship with Christ to get to Heaven, while Jason believes that his works are simply a result of his relationship with Christ - they're both doing good works, and they both have a relationship with Christ.

I think my above answer addresses this. But as you probably want more, I would say they "muddied the water" in the sense that they added something that isn't necessary.

Please see above. You have your provided Biblical verses for achieved salvation, where as I now added more; Matthew 25:31-46 and Luke 14:33. Why are yours [the] solution, where as mine are merely optional, or further, why am I muddying the waters?

Sure, as long as you stick to the NT. I would rather not go off on rabbit trails explaining why you don't understand the OT. So, stick to the NT on this line of reasoning and I'll play your game.

Um, okay....

I'm going to make a couple of hypotheses here. I gather it's not me, whom might be 'playing a game', in the end?

Let me first make my objective clear. The purpose here, is to demonstrate that [your] own moral intuitions disagree with some assertions from the Bible. And further, that some sort of cognitive dissonance, special pleading, rationalization, or other, might be required, upon your part, to reconcile the verse(s).

My second hypothesis, is that we likely fundamentally agree, (both you and I), on the ones listed.

The objective is not necessary to raise discord, or to be adversarial; but instead merely to demonstrate that you likely have to 'spin' some verses, in some inconsistent manner, to make them more comfortable or you. Where as I read them, and think... "Well, it would appear an uniformed individual wrote that verse, as such assertions were mere common-place, for the era in which it was written."

Still care to 'play'?

I don't know whether it was literal or figurative. I haven't put that much effort into studying it. Sorry~

Then you are already starting to demonstrate the title of this thread

 

[cvanwey]

I suspect God is able to look at a person from the perspective of that person and make that determination.

You have again demonstrated the title of this thread. If God deems you rich, then it would stand to reason, using the most basic of logic, that this verse applies to you. So, does He deem you as rich?

And if you genuinely don't know, then not only are you confused, but even further, you do not know if you are actually saved.

So maybe, just to be safe, give away everything God deems worldly. Better to be safe, than sorry, given it's unclear to you, isn't it?

 

[SPF]

Then who specifically and exclusively was Jesus addressing, in Matthew 25:31-46? And how do you know this does not apply to you?

He was addressing people who call themselves followers of Christ.

Or, for that matter, Luke 14:33? Maybe God deems you as rich?

Oh, I am definitely rich. I would be willing to bet I pay more in taxes than you make in a year. I'm definitely rich.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

The passage in Luke would go along with what Paul said in Philippians 3:

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

I am called to forsake all that I have in light of the reality of that God may at any time call me to go somewhere and do something. In other words, I have the right perspective on all my material belongings in that they are all a gift from God and that I may be called to give them up at any time.

I have a job, I make money, but I recognize that the money I make is provided to me by God. I work because work is good, and God provides the money. I then use that money to glorify God and help further His kingdom.

What institution provides the best Biblical education? And furthermore, what are they teaching, in regards to the tenets to salvation? Is it the Catholics, other, other, other?

I haven't looked into all the Bible colleges and seminaries, so I don't know which institution provides the best Biblical education. I also don't know what they are teaching in regards to the tenets of salvation.

I've provided for you what I think is the Biblical basis for Salvation.

Please see above. You have your provided Biblical verses for achieved salvation, where as I now added more; Matthew 25:31-46 and Luke 14:33. Why are yours [the] solution, where as mine are merely optional, or further, why am I muddying the waters?

You'll need to clarify how the passages in Matthew and Luke actually add to the recipe for Salvation. I don't see anything additional or contradictory from what I previously quoted with regards to attaining Salvation.

Still care to 'play'?

Sure. I'll humor a troll for a little while. And the reason I called you a troll is because you're not actually here on this forum to do anything other than attack Christians and try to convince them that they're hypocrites. And honestly, there's literally nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise. The totality of all your posts support that fact. But sure, I'll keep answering your never-ending questions for awhile.

Then you are already starting to demonstrate the title of this thread

No, I am doing no such thing. I'm saying that I haven't looked into the flood narrative enough to come away with an opinion. That does not support the title of your thread.

 

[com7fy8]

- Trust -

- Submit -

- Obey -

Does the above sound reasonable?

It sounds good, but.

It is possible to trust and submit to and obey Jesus, in ways which are the exact opposite of how He wants . . . I think.

Trusting can be distant from the one you trust, without you even really knowing someone and sharing with him or her. There are people who trust God and the Bible, but they do not do what He means, but in their own self-produced way, or merely going along with a crowd.

Submitting can also be distant, going along with influence which comes through second-hand, and maybe not very personal means.

And, likewise . . . obedience can be not in personal sharing with the one you are obeying.

In my opinion, there are people who totally trust Jesus with everything and depend on Him . . . except that they do not submit to Jesus kindly and tenderly sharing with us while He cares for us and guides us in His love with "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:28-30) We need to be with Him in us as our example of how to be and relate in God's kind and tender and gentle and quiet love . . . so our trust and submission and obedience is personal and not self-produced and theoretical and distant.

- Trust - "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something"

This can be distant.

- Submit - "to yield to governance or authority." "to subject to a condition, treatment, or operation"

This can be impersonal and distant, not truly being submissive with personal relating and communication.

- Obey - "to follow the commands or guidance of"

This can be also distant, with direction being mainly verbal, versus in personal union with the One guiding us. If we go with only verbal orders and directions, we can alter the meaning to what we ourselves can make of something. But God's word to me shows that God in us personally has us doing what He means by anything He directs us to do >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, from this I consider that if God wants us to choose to do something, this means how God in sharing with us brings us to will to do what He really desires to do in sharing with us in His love.

And with this we have Colossians 3:15 >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

This is in our basic calling as God's children > all who are God's children are in Christ's "one body", and all "in one body" are "called" to be personally ruled by God's own peace, so personally ruling us because this is right in our "hearts" > not from a distance, not limited to our being able to understand words of directions. But right in us God desires to so personally rule us in His own peace.

So, salvation is not only about what directions to follow, and things to believe, but how we have been brought "from the power of Satan to God" > in Acts 26:18.

 

[John Helpher]

1. Is God providing conflicting messages to differing humans?

God may tell one group of Christians to help the poor in India, and another group to help the poor in Africa. Is this a conflicting message? Nah, of course not. The bottom line is to help the poor. It is we humans who inject a conflict into the message, perhaps by arguing that God told us to help the poor in India because the people in Africa are sinners, or because that he told some to help in India because Africans are ungrateful for the help we offer, or any number of other reasons.

What is written in the pages of the Bible seems to also conflict in areas. Namely, salvation. Ask two Christians, from differing sects, what God deems as necessary for salvation, and the answers will likely conflict.

This is bad logic and comes across as deliberately misleading. You start by saying that the Bible gives conflicting messages about salvation, but then you switch over to relying on different interpretations of that message by humans to justify the conflict.

It works like this; there is a rule on all the various threads of this site that people should not use insults against one another. But, different people will have varying interpretations as to what constitutes an insult (some of those interpretations will be more accurate than others). You then take those differences of interpretation and claim they represent a problem with the rule against insults in general.

If you want to know what it takes to be saved, the best information will come from examining the teachings of Jesus. If you find that a professing Christian's interpretation of salvation is not consistent with what Jesus taught, then that is not a problem with the message of salvation, but rather with how that message is interpreted. It is not sincere to deliberately seek out conflicting (or just plain bad) interpretations as evidence of a problem with the concept which is being interpreted.

Thus, how do Christians decide which verses to adhere to, and which to ignore or re-translate?

Context, sincerity, and common sense. For example, many Christians will appeal to the example of Joseph of Arimathea as an argument for why it's okay for them to hold on to their material wealth, as the record says Joseph was a secret disciple who was wealthy (the part they ignore is that it says he was a secret disciple for fear of the Jews, which is contrary to what Jesus taught; it's likely that the authors of the accounts simply wanted to give Joseph some credit for providing the tomb for Jesus even though he wasn't really a disciple).

However, Joseph isn't boss. He doesn't have the words of eternal life. He isn't the messiah. Jesus is. If there seems to be any conflict between what Jesus taught and the example of some other character recorded in the Bible, then Jesus' example should win out.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure. I'll humor a troll for a little while. And the reason I called you a troll is because you're not actually here on this forum to do anything other than attack Christians and try to convince them that they're hypocrites.

The fact that you have even come to this conclusion begs the question itself... How did you come up with this conclusion?

My objective here is simple. If God exists, God's message is not clear. God gives differing objectives to differing people. Many Christians are earnest in their convictions, and honestly believe what they believe is the 'correct' path to salvation. My objective here is to raise the point... The point being that the Bible is NOT clear as to the path for salvation. You claim it is. I'm here to demonstrate otherwise. And thus far, your every response demonstrates accordingly. Again, go back to post #1, if needed. And then read your successive remarks there-after.

Might I remind you of the objective for this specific forum:

"A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith"

If you think I am a troll, then might I suggest that you spend your time in other arenas. And maybe stay away from CF apologetics...

And honestly, there's literally nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise.

Nothing? Wow. Okay. Then why engage? I guess we are done here.

 

[SPF]

My objective here is simple. If God exists, God's message is not clear.

I haven't read anything from you yet to convince me that you have achieved your simple objective.

God gives differing objectives to differing people.

No He doesn't. Can you prove that He does? You don't even think He exists, so I'm not sure how you can demonstrate that a non-existent Being is giving differing objective to differing people.

Many Christians are earnest in their convictions, and honestly believe what they believe is the 'correct' path to salvation.

Yes, many are. And many are mistaken. But it's not because God isn't clear.

The point being that the Bible is NOT clear as to the path for salvation.

Sure it is. I think the verses I posted were clear, what about them did you find ambiguous?

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

Acts 16:30-31 “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

You claim it is. I'm here to demonstrate otherwise

And you have yet to do so.

And thus far, your every response demonstrates accordingly.

I'm not sure how my every response has done this. You certainly haven't demonstrated to me the truth of your claim.

 

[cvanwey]

I haven't read anything from you yet to convince me that you have achieved your simple objective.

No He doesn't. Can you prove that He does? You don't even think He exists, so I'm not sure how you can demonstrate that a non-existent Being is giving differing objective to differing people.

Yes, many are. And many are mistaken. But it's not because God isn't clear.

Sure it is. I think the verses I posted were clear, what about them did you find ambiguous?

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

Acts 16:30-31 “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

And you have yet to do so.

I'm not sure how my every response has done this. You certainly haven't demonstrated to me the truth of your claim.

Please see the bottom of post #26.

Good bye

 

[SPF]

Please see the bottom of post #26.

Good buy

Sounds a bit like an excuse not to engage with me. Could it be because I don't take all the bait like other posters and am actually willing to respond to the content you post with actual content back? I understand if you don't want to continue engaging with me.

The fact that I don't think you're here on this forum for any reason but to attack Christians isn't a good reason to not engage with me. I'm more than happy to respond to the content of what you say. I think the vast majority of atheists on this forum are here just to poke and antagonize. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't talk to them.

Anyway, this topic has been pretty weak on your part so far, so again, I'm not shocked if you don't want to respond to what I have to say anymore.

I'll just go back to making more money than you pay in taxes I really can't believe that line didn't result in some kind of response from you. You are after-all quite sensitive (as your previous response demonstrated).

Feel free to respond to the actual content I posted in my reply #23, otherwise, I think we'll all assume that I satisfactorily addressed your OP.

 

[cvanwey]

Sounds a bit like an excuse not to engage with me. Could it be because I don't take all the bait like other posters and am actually willing to respond to the content you post with actual content back? I understand if you don't want to continue engaging with me.

The fact that I don't think you're here on this forum for any reason but to attack Christians isn't a good reason to not engage with me. I'm more than happy to respond to the content of what you say. I think the vast majority of atheists on this forum are here just to poke and antagonize. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't talk to them.

Anyway, this topic has been pretty weak on your part so far, so again, I'm not shocked if you don't want to respond to what I have to say anymore.

I'll just go back to making more money than you pay in taxes I really can't believe that line didn't result in some kind of response from you. You are after-all quite sensitive (as your previous response demonstrated).

Feel free to respond to the actual content I posted in my reply #23, otherwise, I think we'll all assume that I satisfactorily addressed your OP.

This may or may not be my last response [to you], depending on your next reply.

I ask you a couple of honest questions. Based upon your prior assertion..... (i.e.)

"And honestly, there's literally nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise."

...I now ask....

1. Was this true, or were you lying? I'm not here to waste my time with people whom are closed-minded, no-matter-what. Either admit you made an impulse response, or stick to your assertion, and we can be done here. Trying to goad me means nothing, if you are going the close your eyes and ears proverbially

2. Do you really think I 'do not have a leg to stand upon'? It's not about being 'weak'/'strong'/'other'. It's about following the logic of your prior statement

 

[John Helpher]

I am called to forsake all that I have in light of the reality of that God may at any time call me to go somewhere and do something. In other words, I have the right perspective on all my material belongings in that they are all a gift from God and that I may be called to give them up at any time.

I have a job, I make money, but I recognize that the money I make is provided to me by God. I work because work is good, and God provides the money. I then use that money to glorify God and help further His kingdom.

I agree that cvanwey is trolling, but not in the sense that you're describing it. What he's doing is exposing the areas where professing Christians really are disobeying Jesus, but he's not doing in the context of helping you to see that you're disobeying; he's just looking for weaknesses to justify his own rebellion. In other words, if he can point to Christians who are not following Jesus properly, then that somehow justifies his own rebellion.

All this stuff you said about how you have the right attitude in your heart isn't consistent with what Jesus taught. When he said, "Anyone who wants to be my disciple must forsake all he has", he wasn't just talking about people believing they don't really need to forsake all so long as they have a "right attitude". He meant what he said. That's why he followed it up with a teaching about not watering-down the saltiness of his teachings, which is exactly what happens when you argue that you've taken a position which allows you to keep hanging on to all your stuff.

He prefaced it with a parable about counting the cost, in which people excitedly start a project without carefully considering the full cost. Obviously this is a direct reference to what it means to follow Jesus; the cost is everything you own. If you're not prepared to give up everything, literally, then you should not start on the Christian journey.

In Matthew 4 and Luke 5 we see the disciples quitting their jobs and leaving behind their stuff to follow Jesus when he says, "follow me". In Luke 18, just after telling a rich man that he need to forsake all he has to get eternal life, Peter says, "Hey, we've forsaken all. what will we get"?

In Acts 2 and 4 we see thousands of disciples selling everything they have and distributing it into the body of believers as needed.

In Matthew 6 we see Jesus plainly saying we cannot work for both God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said we should not let fear of material lack stop us from stepping out in faith a and that all the world chases after these things, but that we should not be like them. He said we should seek his Kingdom, first, and that God will provide for those who do.

When you argue to the contrary, that we don't need to forsake our material possessions to share communally with other Christians and when you argue that we really can keep working for god and money, all you're really doing is promoting a luke-warm testimony to the world, the very thing that cvanwey is attempting to twist to suit his own bitterness against God. You're giving him the ammunition he believes will discredit Jesus' ministry, you, a professing follower denying obedience to the teachings of Jesus with these watery doctrines about how it's all just an ethereal, mysterious attitude where you believe the best about yourself.

Imagine Meshak, Shadrak, and Abednigo bowing to the golden statue while believing in their hearts that they were really bowing to the God of Israel. Perhaps, in their own twisted reasoning they could legitimize such disloyalty, but to everyone looking on they would be denying their God. That is the manner in which cvanwey is trolling you; he can see through the pretense of your "in the heart" justification; he can see that you're explaining-away Jesus' teachings for the sake of convenience.

It is a perfect example of why lukewarmness is so devastating. You give the impression that you have something better than what the world offers, while at the same time you defend worldly values (like demanding payment for your love) as though what Jesus had to offer was just another variation of what the world has to offer. You talk of goodness and love and a better way, but in the end your behavior is no different to the Atheist who loves his family and goes to work 40 hours per week.

 

[SPF]

1. Was this true, or were you lying?

Well that's sort of a false dilemma, I'll go with option 3. I try to avoid using universals, so I shall amend what I said to this: "Based upon the number of the 3,260 posts that I've seen you make in this forum, I find it likely that you're on this forum primarily to attack Christians and what they believe."

Now, could I be wrong about you? Could you be here for some other reason? Sure, anything's possible, but the evidence doesn't support that.

I've certainly never seen you give an inch. But there's always a first for everything I suppose!

2. Do you really think I 'do not have a leg to stand upon'? It's not about being 'weak'/'strong'/'other'. It's about following the logic of your prior statement

You'll need to clarify what you're referring to.

 

[cvanwey]

I agree that cvanwey is trolling, but not in the sense that you're describing it. What he's doing is exposing the areas where professing Christians really are disobeying Jesus, but he's not doing in the context of helping you to see that you're disobeying; he's just looking for weaknesses to justify his own rebellion. In other words, if he can point to Christians who are not following Jesus properly, then that somehow justifies his own rebellion.

Please explain to me how not thinking a man rose from the dead is defined as 'rebellion'? Are you assuming that anyone, whom does not buy the story of a man rising from the dead, is merely rebelling? Do tell? Yes, I find the evidence lacking, to support the claim. But this does not prohibit me from asking questions of the ones whom do, and then choose to follow.

However, I'm still curious as to how Christians make sense of it? The Bible is for everyone to read. When I read it, it looks to make conflicting statements. Hence, I'm here to ask according, in the designated forum arena. More later...

And further yet.... You have me all wrong here...

I'll give you a scenario. It's like when you take a comparative religions course in college. You learn what the assertions and claims are, from that given set of claims, and if you see conflict, you ask questions. That's what I'm doing here.

 

[John Helpher]

Please explain to me how not thinking a man rose from the dead is defined as 'rebellion'? Are you assuming that anyone, whom does not buy the story of a man rising from the dead, is merely rebelling?

There's a documented record of it involving hundreds of eye-witnesses, and you refer to it as a story because that fits better with your narrative. Yes, that is rebellion.

However, I'm still curious as to how Christians make sense of it?

Not, you're not curious. That's not demonstrated in your line of questioned. You believe you've found a weakness; Christians who claim one thing but do another and to be fair, that really is a weakness. But, you're attempting to exploit that weakness; you view it as a means of tearing down Christianity itself rather than rebuking those who claim one thing and do another. That is not simple curiosity.

When I read it, it looks to make conflicting statements.

The Bible is a record spanning thousands of years; of course you will find accounts of people behaving in ways that conflict with one another. That's why sincerity is so important; a sincere person will not become confused (or at least not dismayed) by inconsistencies or contradictions; instead, a sincere person will seek explanations for them, and will recognize when an explanation accurately explains the reason behind the problem.

We went over this before, with your accusations that Jesus' teachings about forsaking all were somehow impossible or contradictory. The simple explanation is that forsaking all does not mean one can never use any material item ever again, but rather the letting-go of personal ownership where we say, "this is mine, it belongs to me and you can't have any!" and instead share the material goods with one another in a practical, wise manner.

That is the obvious solution to Jesus' teachings about forsaking all; it is for the purpose of learning how to share, but that wasn't good enough for you. You stubbornly continued insisting that Jesus must be wrong, because you are not sincere. You want to see a problem, which means rational explanation will seem foolish to you.

 

[cvanwey]

Well that's sort of a false dilemma, I'll go with option 3. I try to avoid using universals, so I shall amend what I said to this: "Based upon the number of the 3,260 posts that I've seen you make in this forum, I find it likely that you're on this forum primarily to attack Christians and what they believe."

Now, could I be wrong about you? Could you be here for some other reason? Sure, anything's possible, but the evidence doesn't support that.

I've certainly never seen you give an inch. But there's always a first for everything I suppose!

You didn't answer the fundamental question. When you stated...

"And honestly, there's literally nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise."

...Are you going to keep your eye's and ears closed, no matter what I bring to the table, or are you open?

And furthermore, though I admit I can be stubborn, I do admit that my views have changed, over the course of two years here. Maybe not immediately, but after later reflection Am I believer now? No. But there has been some topics where I gain new perspective. At the end of the day, I'm not a believer because I do not believe in any supernatural forces, at present. And thus, the claims to Jesus are immediately excluded. But this does not mean I can't ask questions of the believers. Please see post #33

But may I please again remind you... I'm not here to stir the pot, believe it or not. I know the topic may seem that way; and logically, I can see why most might think that.

You'll need to clarify what you're referring to.

I feel I have a proper argument. But if I'm talking to a wall, then I'm not going to bother [with you].

And by the way, in my profession, survival requires thick skin - goading or not

 

[cvanwey]

There's a documented record of it involving hundreds of eye-witnesses, and you refer to it as a story because that fits better with your narrative. Yes, that is rebellion.

Dude, I'm going to have to stop you right here....

If you can show me the evidence that 100's of people are verified to have witnessed a postmortem Jesus, then we can move forward. But thus far, you are making a very blank and unfounded assertion. For which we need to investigate, prior to moving forward.

So please provide this 'document', for starters?

The rest of your response is you claiming you know me better than I know myself. No thnx

 

[John Helpher]

So please provide this 'document', for starters?

That's what the collection of documents, testimonies, and letters which we commonly refer to as "the bible" is. It is only you (and people like you) who describe it as something less who have a problem with the evidence. In other words, you only see it as not-evidence because that's how you want to see it.

The rest of your response is you claiming you know me better than I know myself.

This is a deflection. I am not claiming to know you; I don't know what your favorite color is, what you like to eat, your relationship status, whether or not you have an annoying laugh, what your family life is like, what genre of movies you like or any number of other personal details. But then again neither did I claim to know any of those things. I am claiming to understand your motivation on this topic.

I gave an assessment of your behavior here based on comments you've actually made. You have repeatedly accused Christians here of not obeying Jesus, despite the clarity of his teachings. If your point was that Christians should not claim to follow Jesus while ignoring his teachings, I would agree with you.

But that is not your reason for pointing out the hypocrisy. Instead; you're suggesting that the hypocrisy of those professing Christians equates to a problem with Christianity itself. It is the equivalent of arguing that if some mechanics are dishonest, then that equates to all car repair being problematic. I don't need to know you better than you know yourself to know that this is a deliberate twisting.

 

[cvanwey]

Preemptive response, in the hopes I am not talking to a wall.

He was addressing people who call themselves followers of Christ.

Aren't you a follower? Don't you attempt to keep the Commandments? Don't you attempt to follow the golden rule? Don't you repent directly to Him? Don't you ask yourself, from time-to-time, 'does Jesus think this is right or wrong?' etc etc etc.... I again ask... Why does Luke 14:25-33 not apply to you?

Oh, I am definitely rich. I would be willing to bet I pay more in taxes than you make in a year. I'm definitely rich.

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

The passage in Luke would go along with what Paul said in Philippians 3:

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

I am called to forsake all that I have in light of the reality of that God may at any time call me to go somewhere and do something. In other words, I have the right perspective on all my material belongings in that they are all a gift from God and that I may be called to give them up at any time.

I have a job, I make money, but I recognize that the money I make is provided to me by God. I work because work is good, and God provides the money. I then use that money to glorify God and help further His kingdom.

I'm afraid this answer appears dissatisfying. If you admit God deems you rich, it would appear axiomatic in His request, that He asks that you give it all away, via Luke 14:33. He adds no qualifiers here. And in something as important as the topic for salvation, seems as though Jesus would not want to remain ambiguous, would He? I see no footnote to also reference other verse.

As I've stated here many times, many can support their position, when they can pluck out any verse from the Bible they choose. But in the case for Luke 14:25-33, again, why are you exempt?

[Your] responses appears, to me, to 're-purpose' His request, by insinuating all the money you keep, and spend on whatever you see fit, is glorying Him. But that is clearly not what He says in Luke 14:25-33. Can you explain?

I haven't looked into all the Bible colleges and seminaries, so I don't know which institution provides the best Biblical education. I also don't know what they are teaching in regards to the tenets of salvation.

I've provided for you what I think is the Biblical basis for Salvation.

My point here, is the tenets for salvation differ from one to the next. You claim yours is the correct one. Thus, if you admit you do not know what the others are preaching or asserting regarding salvation, how are you so sure yours is right, while there's in wrong?

The verse in Matthew 25:31-45 states Jesus will separate the saved and unsaved by their works. [You] stated works are not required. I see conflict here. Again, I read the entire passage in it's context. Further...

Luke 14:25-33 states if you are rich, you are to give up everything. Again, why are you exempt?

Sure. I'll humor a troll for a little while. And the reason I called you a troll is because you're not actually here on this forum to do anything other than attack Christians and try to convince them that they're hypocrites. And honestly, there's literally nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise. The totality of all your posts support that fact. But sure, I'll keep answering your never-ending questions for awhile.

No, I am doing no such thing. I'm saying that I haven't looked into the flood narrative enough to come away with an opinion. That does not support the title of your thread.

The rest here seems to create too much hostility to address. I'll leave it alone for now.

 

[cvanwey]

That's what the collection of documents, testimonies, and letters which we commonly refer to as "the bible" is. It is only you (and people like you) who describe it as something less who have a problem with the evidence. In other words, you only see it as not-evidence because that's how you want to see it.

I find it somewhat offensive, in your response. Why? Not that I'm thin-skinned, because I'm not. But you are basically calling me a liar. Why? "Rebellion' would suggest that I, deep down, acknowledge He is real, but instead choose to disobey. (i.e.) Like 'Satan', other...

Where as I state, I genuinely doubt He rose from the dead. Even if I acknowledge that He maybe was born, lived, preached, and was executed.

Further, using your argument above, I guess this means other historical claims to the divine, aliens, etc, are all real, but you are rebellious? That you, deep down, know they exist, but choose to instead find fault in their claims.

And I'm still waiting for your evidence that 100's saw Jesus postmortem? Why am I 'rebelling', and deep down, know it's real and choose to instead rebel?

And once we clear this all up, I will be happy to address all your other points....

 

[John Helpher]

Further, using your argument above, I guess this means other historical claims to the divine, aliens, etc, are all real, but you are rebellious? That you, deep down, know they exist, but choose to instead find fault in their claims.

Yes, I'm saying that, at least in this case, you are being dishonest, and I believe this quote from you is an example of that dishonesty. The collection of records, testimonies, and letters commonly referred to as "the Bible" is in fact a compilation of evidence; that's what testimony is; evidence. It's difficult for atheists to see that because the Bible has been shrouded in so much religious hype over the years that it is more like a holy relic than a collection of evidentiary documents.

Like with all evidence, it must be examined and interpreted in a way which is consistent and practical. Your suggestion that, if we were to examine the Bible as through it really were evidence, then we'd have to believe anything recorded on paper, is an appeal to the ridiculous which dismisses the legitimacy of genuine consideration. That is one way in which you're being dishonest.

The other way in which you're being dishonest is in using the apparent mistakes of professing followers of a religion to condemn the religion itself. It is guilt by association. It is like those people who point to all the priests in Catholicism who abused children and then conclude that Christianity is bad, as though Jesus taught that it is okay to abuse children. It's a dishonest correlation. Yes, by all means call out the bad behavior of those professing a particular religion, but do so fairly. Blame the individual for his wrong choices and not the group or religion.

And the third way in which you're being dishonest is by claiming there are contradictions in Jesus' teachings, and then dismissing explanations which clear up the apparent confusion. You did this with Jesus' teaching about forsaking all, suggesting that Jesus asked something of his followers which is impossible to follow or contrary to others teachings. When I offered a solution, that the answer is to share all things in common, you dismissed that explanation even though it directly addresses your presumed confusion.